Hi SchnahzThank you very much for your comments.Well, you are new in this forum. The moderator (annis) did not liked my philological beliefs (they were against those of the mainstream) and he suggested that I should avoid posting in this forum. I have respected that. So, if he will allow me to come back in the forum, I will do it.Thanks againJohn Neos

Neos wrote:Hi SchnahzThank you very much for your comments.Well, you are new in this forum. The moderator (annis) did not liked my philological beliefs (they were against those of the mainstream) and he suggested that I should avoid posting in this forum. I have respected that. So, if he will allow me to come back in the forum, I will do it.Thanks againJohn Neos

You are not giving a fair assessment of the situation. I don't think annis could care less about your philological beliefs. He (and others have expressed the same sentiment) just wants you to back up your claims with solid evidence. He suggested to stop posting if you can't back up your claims.

Well Bert, as you remember my references were mainly from old British lexika (printed before 1850). Many of the regular members laughed at me for this. Anyway, if you can tolerate to hear something different from what you believe, something that is based on the work of old philologists, who knew ancient Greek in detail, I can come back with my etymologies.Best regardsJohn Neos

Neos wrote:Well Bert, as you remember my references were mainly from old British lexika (printed before 1850). Many of the regular members laughed at me for this. Anyway, if you can tolerate to hear something different from what you believe, something that is based on the work of old philologists, who knew ancient Greek in detail, I can come back with my etymologies.

I think that what Bert meant by "solid evidence" is evidence that meets the standards of modern scientific research, not 150 year old folk etymologies. Just because the old philologists knew their Greek (which I don't doubt), that doesn't mean they knew their etymology as well as modern comparative linguists do.

When I asked William Annis about some aspects of Indo-European linguistics, he refered me to this book. Maybe you should check it out, "if you can tolerate to hear something different from what you believe".

I, Lex Llama, super genius, will one day rule this planet! And then you'll rue the day you messed with me, you damned dirty apes!

Nope. You already have two separate blogs with the same information, and they continue to display the antiquated phantasies I objected to in the first place, and no apparent inclination to engage with current work.

The difference between annis (and many others you didn't mention in order to make it appear as if it was something personal between annis and yourself) and you is this: If new studies knock down another of your favourite "etymologies", you will ignore it while annis will embrace it. If new studies verify one of your "favourite etymologies", you will embrace it and so will annis.

The answer to that question is obvious, but that's not really the problem here. Textkit doesn't demand degrees of people before they can participate. The problem is one of acting expertly in a well-studied, highly technical subject about which one actually knows very little.

My question was addressed because especially in Greece many people, irrelevant to Linguistics, assume that it is natural to have opinion on language matters, just because they are natural users of it. So, very often extreme positions are found about the (ancient) past of Greek language, its "mathematic" or even "divine" (sic!) structure, its superiority among all natural languages, etc. But the real problems begins on the fact that many highly educated persons, even philologists and teachers (of all specialities), accept such theories and boost myths beyond imagination about ancient greek technology, language, mythology, architecture, art... cultural achievements overall.In the aspect of language it's some kind of linguistic chauvinism, also found in other countries.